Climate change ?

Thread Starter

Rank:

None

Points:

Posts:

Joined:

Jul 15, 2010

"Excessive heat in six states -- Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana -- resulted in their warmest August on record. This year ranked in the top ten warmest August for five other states: Florida (3rd), Georgia (4th), Utah (5th), Wyoming (8th), and South Carolina (9th).The Southwest and South also had their warmest August on record."

Rank:

None

Points:

Posts:

Joined:

Sep 24, 2010

NOAA recently admitted they made errors in temerature measurements. They opted to keep the faulty data. So I do not trust any link that points to a site using NOAA data.

The data for the year 1890 (to pick an arbitrary date) is likely inaccurate data. It was OK for the time, but since many are telling us a few degrees rise spells doom and dead polar bears, a few degrees seems important. Back then, we did not have accurate meaurements compared to today.

No possible way to know if it was legitimately collected or guessed at and the further back you go, the more likely it is that the data is inaccurate.

KSL TV Weather put some of their sensors on the roof of their building covered with asphault and gravel. The temperatures were much hotter at the measurement site than down below, on the street. A reporter walked a block away and the temp was five or six degreres hotter and in the local park, much degrees cooler.

We are living in a world driven scared, and being told we will die; by people with an agenda.

Rank:

None

Points:

Posts:

Joined:

Mar 27, 2011

NOAA recently admitted they made errors in temerature measurements. They opted to keep the faulty data. So I do not trust any link that points to a site using NOAA data.

The data for the year 1890 (to pick an arbitrary date) is likely inaccurate data. It was OK for the time, but since many are telling us a few degrees rise spells doom and dead polar bears, a few degrees seems important. Back then, we did not have accurate meaurements compared to today.

No possible way to know if it was legitimately collected or guessed at and the further back you go, the more likely it is that the data is inaccurate.

KSL TV Weather put some of their sensors on the roof of their building covered with asphault and gravel. The temperatures were much hotter at the measurement site than down below, on the street. A reporter walked a block away and the temp was five or six degreres hotter and in the local park, much degrees cooler.

We are living in a world driven scared, and being told we will die; by people with an agenda.

Do not believe the data.

Click to expand...

I often hear this from AGW deniers. None have been able to answer this question. The United States isnt the only country in the world with climate scientists dont you think that if there were serious doubts regarding AGW that the other scientists would say something? Many of these countries have much to gain if it was all a hoax like China who will surpass us in the coming decades as the leading consumer of fossil fuels and thus C02 emissions. Tell me why scientists in all these other countries agree with the underlying science?

Rank:

None

Points:

Posts:

Joined:

Jun 23, 2010

How about asking yourself this Bob, why exactly are the ice caps melting? Ice caps that have been around for millennia are disappearing at an ever increasing rate. Its a hoax, right? To bad MOST scientist don't back you up....

Rank:

None

Points:

Posts:

Joined:

Aug 5, 2010

Actually plenty of scientists back bob up... Like he said, follow the money... naturally occurring phenomenon account for nearly 98% of so called "greenhouse gases" (volcanoes, forest fires, livestock). Not to mention the earth's climate is cyclical anyway. anyone remember the ice ages? And they happened AFTER some of the worst greenhouse gas (volcanic) eruptions ever in the history of the planet.

Rank:

None

Points:

Posts:

Joined:

Feb 20, 2011

I'm of the belief that humans impact the planet less than we think. I'd blame our egos (ie: sun circle around the earth kind of thinking).

I think all of this can be explained with geomagnetic pole reversal. Basically, the north pole goes south for the winter, (which is a cyclical event) and causes mass climate disturbances. According to the cycles, we are due for one in the near future. (The first one for recorded humanity!!)

Thread Starter

Rank:

None

Points:

Posts:

Joined:

Jul 15, 2010

"In the summer of 2001, the IPCC released its strongest statement to date on the problem of global warming, in its Third Assessment Report. The report, "Climate Change 2001", provides further evidence for global warming and its cause&#8212;the widescale burning of fossil fuels by humans. The report projects that global mean surface temperatures on earth will increase by 2.5–10.4

Rank:

None

Points:

Posts:

Joined:

Jun 23, 2010

Actually plenty of scientists back bob up... Like he said, follow the money... naturally occurring phenomenon account for nearly 98% of so called "greenhouse gases" (volcanoes, forest fires, livestock). Not to mention the earth's climate is cyclical anyway. anyone remember the ice ages? And they happened AFTER some of the worst greenhouse gas (volcanic) eruptions ever in the history of the planet.

Actually, neither your post nor the links you provided back Bob up. Bob is making the claim that global warming is NOT happening, and it is NOT a threat to us. You are making the claim, as well as you links are making the claim, that global warming is not man made. Two very differant points. Your point is moot, for it does not matter the cause only the effect. 99% of the scientific community recognizes global warming, though they may differ on the cause, they all recognize that it is happening, and that it WILL have an effect on us.

Rank:

None

Points:

Posts:

Joined:

Aug 29, 2010

For Humans not to be causing global warming (or not much), the basic physics of the greenhouse gases would have to be proven wrong. 8/31/94 - How does carbon dioxide cause global warming?
When something makes sense, you act on it.
Given the fact that there is a much greater vested interest for global warming not to be acted on then for there is to have it acted on, the old corrupt power-mad scientists lying about non happening climate change is moot.
Its ridiculous that so little is being done. If you are told a huge meteor is going to strike the earth, you act on it, even if the chance is only 5%.

Rank:

None

Points:

Posts:

Joined:

Nov 23, 2009

"Excessive heat in six states -- Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana -- resulted in their warmest August on record. This year ranked in the top ten warmest August for five other states: Florida (3rd), Georgia (4th), Utah (5th), Wyoming (8th), and South Carolina (9th).The Southwest and South also had their warmest August on record."

I file this type of info the same way as i file statements about "February being the coldest ever" blah blah blah .... (remember that sort of thing this past winter?)

Long term is what matters. Globally. We will always have highs and lows in the short term, and locally. One "hottest summer ever" or one "coldest winter ever" doesn't change my mind one way or another.

Given the fact that there is a much greater vested interest for global warming not to be acted on then for there is to have it acted on, the old corrupt power-mad scientists lying about non happening climate change is moot.

Click to expand...

Straw-man argument. The argument is not that they are mad scientists or that they are necessarily lying. I'm sure the scientists in the '70s really believed it when they said that we were entering a period of global cooling or that we would soon be unable to feed ourselves due to over-population. Still scientists like everyone else need to make a living and if research grants goes to those who support global warming I'm sure they take notice. Couple that with the push-back scientists receive from the climate change establishment when their research doesn't necessarily jive with their climate change theory:

Scientists have been speculating on the relationship among cosmic rays, solar activity and clouds since at least the 1970s. But the notion didn't get a workout until 1995, when Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark came across a 1991 paper by Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, who had charted a close relationship between solar variations and changes in the earth's surface temperature since 1860.
.
.
.
They announced their findings, and the possible climatic implications, at a 1996 space conference in Birmingham, England. Then, as Mr. Svensmark recalls, "everything went completely crazy. . . . It turned out it was very, very sensitive to say these things already at that time." He returned to Copenhagen to find his local daily leading with a quote from the then-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): "I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely na

Rank:

None

Points:

Posts:

Joined:

Apr 8, 2010

It's so common for the general public to just go to any websites that agree with them and use info on those sites to back themselves up. Anyone who has extensively studied science knows that is definitely the wrong thing to do and will result in an F on a research paper.

Again, PLEASE BE CAREFUL WHERE YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION FROM!

Unless you believe everything that news sites say... especially Fox News, why would you believe everything that is stated on a website either confirming or rejecting global warming?

This is one of those topics that the general public really does not have firm understanding of or of the science itself. When I mean science, I mean environmental science... which encompasses a huge amount of different fields

Environmental Science at Indiana University is considered to be one of the hardest majors due to the need to have extensive knowledge in scientific fields such as atmospheric science, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc. etc.

Global warming IS truly happening but whether or not it is anthropogenic (human-causing) is the question. I highly recommend doing research of your own and look at data itself instead of just believing anything that a website called "junk science" or "world climate report" states. If I quoted those on a research paper, that would be an automatic grade deduction for every one I quote.

Rank:

None

Points:

Posts:

Joined:

Sep 24, 2010

Actually, neither your post nor the links you provided back Bob up. Bob is making the claim that global warming is NOT happening, and it is NOT a threat to us. You are making the claim, as well as you links are making the claim, that global warming is not man made. Two very differant points. Your point is moot, for it does not matter the cause only the effect. 99% of the scientific community recognizes global warming, though they may differ on the cause, they all recognize that it is happening, and that it WILL have an effect on us.

Click to expand...

Bob is not making the claim that temps are not rising or that GW is not, in part, man made. Perhaps that is what I might of said, so let me clarify. Yes, temps are rising and yes, man might be part of the "problem."

According to the UCAR, over the last 100 years, the temperatures have risen 1.36 degrees F. Bob is making the claim that two or three degrees warmer in a hundred years will not make any appreciable difference. And scientists that say the same thing are never listened to.

I am saying that those saying so much about GW are not scientists with any qualifications to know. Like actors.

The EPA says 2-7 degrees is one possibility but they do not know. In these arguments, hardly anyone considers that GW could be natural, but laws are being written based on science that is in no way settled.

The first(?) major climate study years ago (I'll try to find a link) was signed by thousands of "important" people. It was big news on the conservitive side; hardly mentioned by the left. This suggested to the public that GW must be serious because so many that know so much cant be wrong. Problem was, it was signed by actors, poets, others that did not have a clue or the scientific background.

Bob is upset that use "deniers" can't get a word in edgewise and that Al Gore publicly said that the debate is over. I am also bothered that so many people think things like Carbon Credits are good for the environment when they are nothing more than a way to make millions of dollars and the public thinks they make a difference. They do not; all they do is allow a polluter to pollute more by buying credits from a polluter that does not pollute much.

Rank:

None

Points:

Posts:

Joined:

Sep 24, 2010

How about asking yourself this Bob, why exactly are the ice caps melting? Ice caps that have been around for millennia are disappearing at an ever increasing rate. Its a hoax, right? To bad MOST scientist don't back you up....

Click to expand...

Perhaps they do melt from time to time. And perhaps how much they melt is not really a problem. Al Gore did not do his side any favors when it was shown that the caps are perhaps not melting as much as his power point movie showed.

Try searching for the truth and accurate weather data. It is all over the place. The Danish say the North Pole's temperatures have risen only a few degrees average over the last 100 years, others say more and a few say less.

And so what if the ice caps are melting? We do not know how much or what will happen and you cannot suggest that it might be natural. You can point to colder temperatures on average at the poles and some will say the data is wrong; they are quick to offer other data that might be flawed or just BS.

Others say the fact that our winters are so cold is due to GW. We deniers cannot win.

Rank:

None

Points:

Posts:

Joined:

Aug 29, 2010

I file this type of info the same way as i file statements about "February being the coldest ever" blah blah blah .... (remember that sort of thing this past winter?)

Long term is what matters. Globally. We will always have highs and lows in the short term, and locally. One "hottest summer ever" or one "coldest winter ever" doesn't change my mind one way or another.

Click to expand...

Thats a very good point! Its what over decades what matters. Of course we know that the planet is warming, but the general public often think that two cold winters in their small bit of the planet means the warming of the planet isnt happening. Or vice versa. Climate isnt the 7 day weather forecast

When we had a record breaking cold 2010-2011 winter we were lectured that weather does not equal climate. That doesn't hold true when we have record breaking heat?

Straw-man argument. The argument is not that they are mad scientists or that they are necessarily lying. I'm sure the scientists in the '70s really believed it when they said that we were entering a period of global cooling or that we would soon be unable to feed ourselves due to over-population. Still scientists like everyone else need to make a living and if research grants goes to those who support global warming I'm sure they take notice. Couple that with the push-back scientists receive from the climate change establishment when their research doesn't necessarily jive with their climate change theory:

Thread Starter

Rank:

None

Points:

Posts:

Joined:

Jul 15, 2010

... It's so common for the general public to just go to any websites that agree with them and use info on those sites to back themselves up. ...

...This is one of those topics that the general public really does not have firm understanding of or of the science itself. When I mean science, I mean environmental science... which encompasses a huge amount of different fields. ....

... If I quoted those on a research paper, that would be an automatic grade deduction for every one I quote.

Click to expand...

Being a member of the general public and not having a firm understanding of the all the science fields related to Climate Change and hoping to avoid a grade reduction, which sources should one use that can be shared with this board that general public can understand ?

I'm not being cute, as the general public does have a stake in this debate.

Rank:

None

Points:

Posts:

Joined:

Sep 24, 2010

Being a member of the general public and not having a firm understanding of the all the science fields related to Climate Change and hoping to avoid a grade reduction, which sources should one use that can be shared with this board that general public can understand ?

I'm not being cute, as the general public does have a stake in this debate.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed, the public has a stake in it. You hit upon one of the big problems with the Internet. It can be very difficult to find accurate data or data that has not been spun. A perfect example is this debate. No shortage of links to "prove" that your statements or my statements are wrong or correct.

In my business, I must deal with facts. I am not allowed to slip something by that has not been fact checked.

Some people love the net because they can get any answer they want to any question they dare to ask. Some people simply pick the first link Google returns and post that. In most cases, the poster has not actually researched the hard data; they simply assume it is accurate because it sounds reasonable.

Fortunately, you can find the truth if you do the research. On a forum, however, few people are willing to spend a day ploughing through the crap to get to the basic facts tp post a reply to someone they disagree with.

And fewer still know how to parse raw data and draw a meaningful conclusion.

Few people are truly qualified to discuss GW at a deep technical level so they must use the web to find the answers. Sometimes we get into arguments because one person has a different set of "facts" to support their ideas than I have.

Sometimes, we simply do not want our sacred cows slaughtered and what seems outrageous or seems like a lie is actually the truth. When you post actual facts, some people do not believe what you say. Their exposure to the largely liberal media disagrees, so the facts must not be actual facts, but lies.

If you do not trust those links, follow the links in the articles. Also, search Google for other articles about this data issue. Learn how this data was collected (NOAA uses amateurs to collect data and they acknowledge some of those taking measurements are not complying with accepted standards)

Thread Starter

Rank:

None

Points:

Posts:

Joined:

Jul 15, 2010

... The Danish say the North Pole's temperatures have risen only a few degrees average over the last 100 years, others say more and a few say less.

Click to expand...

Well, let's examine the l-o-n-g view.

"The research published in the journal Science (Sept. 8) demonstrates that abrupt climate change has been a systemic feature of Earth's climate for hundreds of thousands of years and may play an active role in longer term climate variability through its influence on ice age terminations."

Rank:

None

Points:

Posts:

Joined:

Sep 24, 2010

"The research published in the journal Science (Sept. 8) demonstrates that abrupt climate change has been a systemic feature of Earth's climate for hundreds of thousands of years and may play an active role in longer term climate variability through its influence on ice age terminations."